IBM UNITED KINGDOM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 197, in respect to deductibility of tax on similar receipts - The CIT(A) highlighted that section 195(2) and section 197 of the Act are in the nature of safeguard sections to make sure that taxes are rightfully deducted on payments. - The CIT(A) has thereafter contended that the Assessee has not availed any of the safeguards and basis

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 197, in respect to deductibility of tax on similar receipts - The CIT(A) highlighted that section 195(2) and section 197 of the Act are in the nature of safeguard sections to make sure that taxes are rightfully deducted on payments. - The CIT(A) has thereafter contended that the Assessee has not availed any of the safeguards and basis

IBM DEUTSCHLAND GMBH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

271C of the Act or u/s 270A of the Act, which can be\nactually classified as follows:\nCategory ‘A’:\nLevy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, where the original\nreturn u/s 139(1) of the Act has not been filed and receipts were\noffered to tax in the return filed u/s 148 of the Act.\nName

IBM CANADA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

271C of the Act or u/s 270A of the Act, which can be\nactually classified as follows:\nCategory ‘A’:\nLevy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, where the original\nreturn u/s 139(1) of the Act has not been filed and receipts were\noffered to tax in the return filed u/s 148 of the Act.\nName

IBM AUSTRALIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

271C of the Act or u/s 270A of the Act, which can be\nactually classified as follows:\n\nCategory ‘A’:\nLevy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, where the original\nreturn u/s 139(1) of the Act has not been filed and receipts were\noffered to tax in the return filed u/s

COMPAGNIE IBM FRANCE,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

271C of the Act or u/s 270A of the Act, which can be\nactually classified as follows:\nCategory ‘A’:\nLevy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, where the original\nreturn u/s 139(1) of the Act has not been filed and receipts were\noffered to tax in the return filed u/s 148 of the Act.\nName

IBM CANADA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

271C of the Act or u/s 270A of the Act, which can be\nactually classified as follows:\nCategory ‘A’:\nLevy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, where the original\nreturn u/s 139(1) of the Act has not been filed and receipts were\noffered to tax in the return filed u/s 148 of the Act.\nName

IBM AUSTRALIA LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

271C and the yardstick of\nreasonable cause u/s 273B was applied\nbased on the facts of that case.\n(Page 17-18 of the CIT(A) order)\nThe contention that the explanations of\nthe Assessee are not bonafide merely\nbecause receipts were offered in the 148\nreturn.\nThe Assessee had bonafide reasons to not\noffer receipts to tax under section

IBM CANADA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

271C and the yardstick of\nreasonable cause u/s 273B was applied\nbased on the facts of that case.\n(Page 17-18 of the CIT(A) order)\nThe contention that the explanations of\nthe Assessee are not bonafide merely\nbecause receipts were offered in the 148\nreturn.\nThe Assessee had bonafide reasons to not\noffer receipts to tax under section

IBM JAPAN LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

271C of the Act or u/s 270A of the Act, which can be\nactually classified as follows:\nCategory ‘A’:\nLevy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, where the original\nreturn u/s 139(1) of the Act has not been filed and receipts were\noffered to tax in the return filed u/s 148 of the Act.\n\nName

IBM CANADA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

271C and the yardstick of\nreasonable cause u/s 273B was applied\nbased on the facts of that case.\n(Page 17-18 of the CIT(A) order)\nThe contention that the explanations of\nthe Assessee are not bonafide merely\nbecause receipts were offered in the 148\nreturn.\nThe Assessee had bonafide reasons to not\noffer receipts to tax under section

IBM CHINA HONG KONG LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

section\n195(2) and section 197 of the Act are\nin the nature of safeguard sections to\nmake sure that taxes are rightfully\ndeducted on payments.\nRebuttal to the CIT(A)'s observations\nProvisions of section 195(2)/ 197 of the\nAct are not mandatory and therefore the\nAO cannot be expected to seek recourse\nto the same.\nTherefore

IBM JAPAN LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

penalty\nu/s 271C and the yardstick of\nreasonable cause u/s 273B was applied\nbased on the facts of that case.\n(Page 17-18 of the CIT(A) order)\nMAK Data (supra) ruling is in the context\nof a case where income was voluntarily\noffered pursuant to a survey proceeding\nunder section 133A of the Act. No\nbonafide explanations were

IBM JAPAN LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

271C and the yardstick of\nreasonable cause u/s 273B was applied\nbased on the facts of that case.\n(Page 17-18 of the CIT(A) order)\nThe contention that the explanations of\nthe Assessee are not bonafide merely\nbecause receipts were offered in the 148\nreturn.\nThe Assessee had bonafide reasons to not\noffer receipts to tax under section

IBM UNITED KINGDOM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

271C and the yardstick of\nreasonable cause u/s 273B was applied\nbased on the facts of that case.\n(Page 17-18 of the CIT(A) order)\nThe contention that the explanations of\nthe Assessee are not bonafide merely\nbecause receipts were offered in the 148\nreturn.\nThe Assessee had bonafide reasons to not\noffer receipts to tax under section

IBM UNITED KINGDOM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

penalty is to be sustained.\n\nPage 50 of 56\n\nIT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 &\nIT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024\nIBM Canada Limited & Others\n\n6.\nWe have heard the rival submissions and perused the\nmaterials available on record. In these cases the penalty is levied\neither u/s 271C of the Act or u/s 270A

COMPAGNIE IBM FRANCE,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

271(1)(c)\nof the Act in respect of the income being\nsurrendered. The only argument made by\nthe Assessee was that it voluntarily\noffered receipts to tax and therefore,\npenalty cannot be levied.\nThe CIT(A) has contended that mere\nacceptance of tax liability will not\npreclude the levy of the penalty on the\nassessee.\nThe

IBM OSTERREICH INTIONATIONALE BUROMASCHINEN GESELLSCHAFT MBH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

271C and the yardstick of\nreasonable cause u/s 273B was applied\nbased on the facts of that case.\n(Page 17-18 of the CIT(A) order)\n\nThe contention that the explanations of\nthe Assessee are not bonafide merely\nbecause receipts were offered in the 148\nreturn.\nThe Assessee had bonafide reasons to not\noffer receipts to tax under